karnal: Obama's moratorium on offshore drilling was prompted by the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico two years ago... any surged in domestic oil production since are from actions set in motion years before Obama took office....and even if he hasn't tried to "shut down" traditional energy industries, his policies have steered federal money away from oil and coal to alternative energy sources.

Um. None of that is related to what I responded to. What moratorium on free trade agreements?\

sprawl15:So, potentially in the future he could apply that declared loss to passive activity gains from his dancing horses, but that's a far cry from the original claim.

This is where you get it wrong, he can fold those losses over into any other income by selling it. I tried to mention that to you earlier but like Deucednuisance is complaining about you went all babyish, figured it wasn't worth it at that point.

sprawl15:Headso: sprawl15: So, potentially in the future he could apply that declared loss to passive activity gains from his dancing horses, but that's a far cry from the original claim.

This is where you get it wrong, he can fold those losses over into any other income by selling it. I tried to mention that to you earlier but like Deucednuisance is complaining about you went all babyish, figured it wasn't worth it at that point.

sammyk:FTFA:Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.

Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters. I had one of my politically incurious friends tell me over the weekend that Obama wants to cut the military. My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

sammyk:Cythraul: sammyk: FTFA:Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.

Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters. I had one of my politically incurious friends tell me over the weekend that Obama wants to cut the military. My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

I told him to be sure and make it to the polls Nov. 7th

That doesn't surprise me, given the average American Idiot.

I'm not talking about your average moron. This guy is very intelligent. He's just part of that demographic that is too busy with work and life to have time to follow politics the way farkers that frequent this tab do. Now he is a contractor for the military so to be fair to him voting for Romney would be a vote in his self interest as Romney has said he wants to increase defense spending.

But I don't think Obama wants to cut the military. I think it is simply on the table and has to be if you are going to approach balancing the budget like an adult.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. If he was very intelligent he wouldn't make comments on things he knows nothing about. He also wouldn't vote without researching each candidate's policies. He's just another idiot.

Philip Francis Queeg:sprawl15: There's a couple problems getting in the way of this. Number one is the USAF's stranglehold on the international air refueling scene; they offer refueling at significantly below cost for any other country. If Germany, for example, has a fully amortized tanker with crew and bla bla ready to go, it's cheaper for them to buy from the US than to fly their own sorties.

I'm not really all that concerned if Germany's defense budget isn't subsidized by the US tax payer to the same extent any longer.

It shouldn't be. The cold war is long since won and it's about time the US defense budget was for actual defense of the US instead of being used to project US power around the world.

ha-ha-guy:Incorrect. When sats are being brought back to Earth there are concerns as to if their power source will burn up in the atmosphere.

If a sat is being deliberately brought back to earth, then either it is nearly out of fuel anyway. You don't spend thousands of dollars per pound to put something into orbit with no intention of using every last drop. And then, being a controlled deorbit, you aim for the ~70% of the planet that's ocean.

There are only two reasons to blow up a satellite; One is if it's malfunctioned and is in an out of control descent into or near a populated area. The other is if the technology on board is something you don't want anyone to know about. (The only case I'm aware of where a deorbiting satellite was destroyed as it came down happens to be both.)

In those cases there is absolutely no need for the Aegis cruiser. The job can be done just as easily - perhaps moreso - by aircraft launched munitions.

But let's assume a billion-dollar missile cruiser ship is somehow the only tool that can do the job. How often does this happen and how many such ships do we actually need? I'm thinking less than we have now.

ha-ha-guy:One possible option on the table for asteroid defense is basically a missile battery that spams missiles as the asteroid so it is nudged.

And the astrophysicists who actually know a thing or two about asteroids will tell you that is not a good plan, even if you could get your missiles beyond LEO. The better strategy is to actually push the asteroid with a steady, controllable, steerable force - that means landing a probe with a rocket engine on it.

ha-ha-guy:As for credible threats, China's keeps buying more SSMs like they are candy and their idea of Stage I of any conflict is to simply flood the ROK, Japan, and Taiwan with SSMs. The Aegis ships serve as an excellent deterrence threat. Especially as the domestic Chinese economy slows down and China looks to start shiat abroad (the Senkakus) to distract people from internal issues. Nationalism is one of the top tools of the CCP and since they can't play as many economic cards these days they look to play more nationalism ones. There is a valid desire to field more Aegis hulls in the Pacific and even some honest work for them elsewhere.

It's not completely clear what China has to gain by blowing up their neighbors. Distract from internal issues? Really? That might work in the USA, where the distraction is a place halfway around the world with little or no economic importance to us and that half the population couldn't find on a map if their life depended on it. Even in China I'd think saturation bombing of neighboring countries would not go over well with the population.

If Japan wants more cruisers as a deterrent, they can build them. The US is worth too much to China's economy for the foreseeable future to just randomly start a war out of ennui. Still not convinced it's money well spent.

qorkfiend:Ridiculous under all circumstances? Yes, I'm sure "blow up the enemy intelligence satellites" would be looked on as ridiculous if we went to war with a country that had satellites.

With the very high probability that the resulting debris would damage civilian and YOUR military sats, and anything else you try t put up there for decades to come? No, still ridiculous. What you might do, however, it tag it with a laser to blind it or ruin its communications systems. Still don't need a missile for that.=Smidge=

kg2095:sammyk: FTFA:Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.

Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters. I had one of my politically incurious friends tell me over the weekend that Obama wants to cut the military. My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

I told him to be sure and make it to the polls Nov. 7th

Why do have friends like that?

Because I am not a partisan asshat that expects his friends to agree with him politically. In fact its very rare for politics to come up at all when I am hanging out with my friends.

karnal: You thought that was good enough to quote "verbatim"?What proof did Obama have of his abilities when he ran the first go around? None! How about this time? None!Same things you say can apply to Dems just as easy.

Who said I voted for Obama last time around? I saw him in the middle of the Cult Of Personality and said: No thank you. This time around, I see what he is up against, and I was undecided up until Romney started talking about his plans to fix the economy. He says whatever his audience wants to hear. When speaking to the rich, he talks about how he's going to end Social Programs and starve them out, when talk to the middle class, he's talking about taxing the rich. He's a shiatty liar, and does nothing but pander to whoever he is speaking to. As of now, he's totally turned his back on his base, who he's been pandering for the last 6 years.

In case you haven't heard, the economy is picking up slightly. It's easy to stand on the outside and say: I'll do it better. Plans? Proof? Just trust me, I'll do it better.

I'll tell you right now I have a SIX point plan to recover our economy, that's one better than Romney's, so that means my plan is better. Given I'm an independent, I don't cater to either side, I'll arm the whole farking country and give buy 1 get one free abortion coupons. Who needs vouchers, everyone likes coupons better. Vote for me! It's only fair...

Well, there you go.....four years and 11,000,000,000,000 dollars later and our economy is "picking up slightly".....you have talked me into voting for Obama.....good job!

Smidge204:With the very high probability that the resulting debris would damage civilian and YOUR military sats, and anything else you try t put up there for decades to come? No, still ridiculous. What you might do, however, it tag it with a laser to blind it or ruin its communications systems. Still don't need a missile for that.=Smidge=

kg2095:sammyk: FTFA:Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.

Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters. I had one of my politically incurious friends tell me over the weekend that Obama wants to cut the military. My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

ha-ha-guy:Kafka at the Improv: As a commander in the Guard, I have to tell you that we are already strapped when it comes to training and mobilization requirements. Just finished developing a 3-year training plan and could barely squeeze in all of our various training requirements, and that's not accounting for all of the other stuff state and the feds will dump on us last minute (suicide prevention stand down? Sure, let me just scrap eight hours out of the one weekend i get this month).

My comment was a bit more general. In reality I think the whole Guard system does need a revamp. For example I was active duty, then I was guard, and then I had a wife, kids, and lost all interest in getting federalized and sent off to our latest quagmire in the Middle East. I'd much rather see a system where you had three levels.

1. Active Duty

2. A level where you were perhaps two weekends every six weeks, two 2 week periods a year (or something of that nature). This would be primarily aimed at formerly active duty folks who had skills the military was interested in keeping sharp. Tomorrow for example if we had a major war, armor would play a major role. Twenty years from now as drone tech as improved, I don't think it would matter so much. So you'd push jobs from the active duty level down to here as they became semi important (since odds are we won't have a major land war in twenty years). Attack helicopters might be going this way as well as Reaper drones keep getting better and cheaper.

3. Domestic Guard Level. Basically the deal is you will never be deployed overseas unless Congress declares war. You're trained more as disaster relief supplement for things like floods, fires, hurricanes, etc. I think this level would attract people like myself. Went to college on the GI Bill, did some time in the Guard, but now have a wife and kids. I'd gladly go help out in post Katrina New Orleans for awhile, but I'm not joining the Guard because I don't want to die in Iraq.

So with the three levels it lets you have war fighters and tail in a sense Train level 3 guys for disaster relief and logistics, so as to give Level 2 more time for warfighting.

For the majority of our nations history the Guard has been option 3. My unit helped fight wildfires in 2007. Ever since GWOT, though, the feds have basically told us they want us to be 3 AND 1 while still drilling only 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks in the Summer. Its unsustainable and needs to be rethought. Your idea seems reasonable, but perhaps we should make the Reserves option 2 and move combat arms units over to them, allowing the Guard to focus more stateside while still being able to fill in occasional gaps in combat service support and service support roles.

I have always wanted to make all reserve/guard positions above E-7 for enlisted and above O-3 for officers full-time just to allow for more effective management, but the Guard cant even afford re-up bonuses or lodging so i doubt that will happen.

born_yesterday:El Morro: sammyk: I'm not talking about your average moron. This guy is very intelligent. He's just part of that demographic that is too busy with work and life to have time to follow politics the way farkers that frequent this tab do.

I've been saying this for years. Too many Americans are just too damn busy with the stresses of everyday life (especially during a difficult economy) to be able to follow politics as much as they should to make properly informed decisions.

And this is where journalists really screwed the pooch. They waste time on bullsh*t stories (Hell, TIME had an article on Ryan's workout routine, IIRC), and leave people more confused than they were before. It's a f*cking joke.

You would think as a society, we would have a shared, vested interest in making informed political decisions.

sprawl15:The All-Powerful Atheismo: The problem people have with him is not that he is rich and gets tax deductions. $77,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to how much he is worth. It would be bothersome if he got the money, but whether he did or didn't ISN'T THE ISSUE.

The issue is that HE IS ABLE TO IN THE FIRST PLACE

How is he able to?

You want me to say 'because he is rich' but the actual answer is because people like him advocate giving unfair advantages to rich people in the tax code.

karnal: You thought that was good enough to quote "verbatim"?What proof did Obama have of his abilities when he ran the first go around? None! How about this time? None!Same things you say can apply to Dems just as easy.

Who said I voted for Obama last time around? I saw him in the middle of the Cult Of Personality and said: No thank you. This time around, I see what he is up against, and I was undecided up until Romney started talking about his plans to fix the economy. He says whatever his audience wants to hear. When speaking to the rich, he talks about how he's going to end Social Programs and starve them out, when talk to the middle class, he's talking about taxing the rich. He's a shiatty liar, and does nothing but pander to whoever he is speaking to. As of now, he's totally turned his back on his base, who he's been pandering for the last 6 years.

In case you haven't heard, the economy is picking up slightly. It's easy to stand on the outside and say: I'll do it better. Plans? Proof? Just trust me, I'll do it better.

I'll tell you right now I have a SIX point plan to recover our economy, that's one better than Romney's, so that means my plan is better. Given I'm an independent, I don't cater to either side, I'll arm the whole farking country and give buy 1 get one free abortion coupons. Who needs vouchers, everyone likes coupons better. Vote for me! It's only fair...

Well, there you go.....four years and 11,000,000,000,000 dollars later and our economy is "picking up slightly".....you have talked me into voting for Obama.....good job!

The All-Powerful Atheismo:sprawl15: The All-Powerful Atheismo: The problem people have with him is not that he is rich and gets tax deductions. $77,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to how much he is worth. It would be bothersome if he got the money, but whether he did or didn't ISN'T THE ISSUE.

The issue is that HE IS ABLE TO IN THE FIRST PLACE

How is he able to?

You want me to say 'because he is rich' but the actual answer is because people like him advocate giving unfair advantages to rich people in the tax code.

Now go use 2nd grade logic elsewhere.

No, I want you to explain, clearly, what methodology he would use to write off the $77k against his general income. You're very sure of yourself, so I'd like to see your work.

Geez, the filter even recognizes LEET! Think about it, here is what Jackson probably typed (and I'm separating with hyphens to maybe bypass the filter): "... aircraft carrier,coont-9." Do you see the LEET word before the 9? Unmazing!

karnal:I am all for alternative energy.....in theory, we should be well on our way to getting off of fossil fuels by now....but we are not.....and taking money from the oil industries to give to "green" companies (Solar Trust of America, Solyndra, Abound Solar, LSP Energy, Evergreen Solar and Azure Dynamics....to name just a few...and all have FAILED...all have cost us taxpayers millions!) is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The Department of Energy loan program has financed 28 green energy projects, involved 23 companies. Of those 23 companies, only Abound Solar, Beacon Power, and Solyndra have gone bankrupt.

If you widen the net from the DOE loan program to the grants received by companies such as Azure Dynamics, the list of failures rises to 14.

14 out of over 15,000, representing a success rate of 99.907%.

While some politicians may gleefully cheer the tiny number of failures, representing out of work Americans and bankrupted businesses, most Americans would interpret this as a wildly successful program.

If you widen the net from the DOE loan program to the grants received by companies such as Azure Dynamics, the list of failures rises to 14.

14 out of over 15,000, representing a success rate of 99.907%.

While some politicians may gleefully cheer the tiny number of failures, representing out of work Americans and bankrupted businesses, most Americans would interpret this as a wildly successful program.

Now, now, we can't be injecting "truth" and "facts" into a discussion! "Lies" serve The Narrative so much more ably!